Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable LiveJournal users (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Ezeu 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

List of notable LiveJournal users

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article, started by User:Rootology, was kept no consensus before. I perceive two main problems with this article. First, there is no independent source for the notability of the LiveJournals; that is, although the list states it is a list of people whose LiveJournals are notable, there are generally no sources for those LiveJournals being considered notable, only for the people being notable and having LiveJournals. That being the case, why LiveJournal? Surely it is LiveJournal's job to have a list of its notable users, like our list of notable Wikipedians? Second, several of them - quite a number in fact - do not have Wikipedia articles. There are generally one or two web links per entry, but often no Wikipedia links, red or otherwise, violating WP:NOT a link farm. But the main problem is that of having no independent source to verify that their LiveJournal is considered notable or a particular part of their fame. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I worry about this being a non-notable criterion for inclusion in a list. What is important, or note-worthy about having a LiveJournal account such that it would be a non-trivial list?   What distinguishes this from being a thinly disguised link farm, when all relevant information is already included on their personal page?  ---Haemo 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I thought I would say delete, until ii followed some of the links. the unexpressed criterion seems to be that LiveJournal users who are notable enough for separate WP articles should be listed it. We could conceivably have a category for Live Journal users, but that would get cluttered with one who's journals were not important. I find the line of description more helpful than a category, for most are unknown to me. I recognize however the circularity: if we give them articles because they are known for LiveJournals, and then list them here because we give them articles. But the same is true for every other form of expression: We list novelists because they write notable novels, and we list novels because they are written by notable novelists. In each case we presumably use other criteria as well, and we can here too. DGG 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a list of notable people (they all have articles written about them). Very good tool to crossreference with LiveJournal, which is also notable. --FateClub 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an indiscriminate list of famous people who happen to have a blog using this particular service -- so what? -- and it's a list of people famous for using this particular service -- which is what categories are good for. Either case spells "D-E-L-E-T-E". --Calton | Talk 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not indiscriminate if it is notable Livejournal users. --FateClub 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Summer cannibal 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps deleting those entries that don't have Wikipedia articles - that would be a clear solution to the problem of determining notability. In general, I think we should be prepared to have more articles of bloggers. (Not-so-random example: I'm interested in which Australian politicians blog. It's difficult to find that information on Wikipedia.) So maybe we could delete this if we had a more general "notable bloggers" page, but until that is created, this article needs to stay. Besides, LJ is notable as a community. StAnselm 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepAgree with the above poster that perhaps "notable bloggers" would be more appropriate, but as LiveJournal is rather notable in itself, the way this article stands seems acceptable. Perhaps delete the entries which have no links.  It's not a "list of people famous for using this particular service"...it's a list of people who are famous and also happen to use this particular service.  Since it is a blogging site, the blogs of these famous people is of interest.
 * delete. . Mukadderat 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.